5

Many a man died in that battle.

My understanding of many mean more than 2 and a man mean 1. But in the sentence above, these two words are put together and I wonder what does it really mean? How can you have many one man died in that battle?

Amit Verma
  • 1,039
zikara
  • 51
  • @Terah FYR, we can't close a question as a duplicate of other Stack Exchange sites. You can try to find it as I did on ELU and flag the question as duplicate. Then, this question will be placed in a review queue. That really helps the community deal with duplicate questions. –  Feb 27 '16 at 04:38

2 Answers2

6

This is what Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary has to say about this (maybe a bit too lengthy), on its Ask the Editor subpage:

Many

The word many has two common functions:

A) It is often used as an adjective that describes a plural noun and tells us that there is a large number of that noun, as in these examples:
1. She worked hard for many years. 2. They were one of the many, many families that came to watch the parade._

B) Many is also commonly used as a pronoun, to mean “many people or things,” as in these examples:
1. Some people will come to the meeting, but many [=many people] will not.
2. We were hoping to sell our old books, but many [=many books] were not in good condition._
3. I know some of the people here, but not very many.

Many a/an...

The fixed expression many a/an... is more formal than the single word many, and it is much less common. Many a/an... is used mainly in literary writing and newspapers. Like the adjective and pronoun many discussed above, many a/an... is used to indicate a large number of something. However, it takes a singular noun, which can be followed by a singular verb. Here are some examples:
1. It remained a mystery for many a year. [=for many years]
2. I've been there many a time. [=many times]
3. Many a politician has promised to make changes. [Politician and has are singular.]

And here's Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, saying:

many a (formal): used with a singular noun and verb to mean ‘a large number of’:
Many a good man has been destroyed by drink.

So, they practically mean the same thing, but the second one is more formal, and less common in modern English.

Færd
  • 4,173
  • 3
    FWIW, I find it odd that that dictionary characterizes its use as more "formal". It is maybe old-fashioned, but I don't think of it as particularly formal. I can imagine farmers, pirates, and common country folk, especially in former times, saying "many a lad", "many a day", etc. – Drew Feb 27 '16 at 02:53
  • @Drew Good point. I edited my answer. – Færd Feb 27 '16 at 03:08
  • 1
    The problem I had was not with your answer but with the dictionary. – Drew Feb 27 '16 at 03:09
  • @Drew I retrieved my edit. Oxford too says it's formal. Maybe it is! – Færd Feb 27 '16 at 03:20
  • Search for song lyrics with "many a": House of the Rising Sun, Bob Dylan's Dream, Many a Mile, Many a Day, Wild Rover, The Fox, Seven Drunken Nights,... – Drew Feb 27 '16 at 07:15
  • 1
    @Drew More probably, that accounts for it being more literary, not less formal. – Færd Feb 27 '16 at 08:51
  • It’s not a standard colloquial construction, but I’d definitely describe it as literary or poetic, rather than formal. As per Drew’s comment, it turns up in plenty of pop songs; but it’s much less likely to turn up in a newspaper article or scientific paper. – PLL Feb 27 '16 at 10:39
  • 1
    @PLL I tend to agree with you two, but I don't understand why a word or construction can't be from two or more registers. There are 1757 hits for many a in COCA, 170 of which in the spoken subcategory, 507 in fiction, 545 in magazine, 330 in newspaper, and 205 in academic. If the subcategories are of the same size (which is true, I guess), then it's probably be true that many a is formal and literary. – Færd Feb 27 '16 at 14:24
  • @PLL (and @Fard): You might consider old folk songs "literary" today, but they certainly were not originally. They were folk songs (and in the original sense, not something penned by an individual, modern author). Hard to believe this is so hard to get across. "Many a" is perhaps used more today in literary ways, but it has been (was, at least) how at least some ordinary, common folk talked, informally. – Drew Feb 27 '16 at 20:52
  • 1
    @Drew: I certainly didn’t mean to suggest it’s never been in ordinary use! In calling it literary or poetic, I was talking about current usage. // That said, one can’t generally assume that the language of folk songs was originally colloquial. Many oral traditions have had special poetic registers — language associated specifically with songs and poems. “Ordinary, common folk” — or, at least, the singers and storytellers among them — have always been just as capable of switching registers and playing with language as literary poets. – PLL Feb 27 '16 at 21:19
  • 1
    @PLL: We have an absence of any evidence here either way, so far. As one contemporary speaker (one data point), I do not find it particularly formal or literary. It is not very common, that's all. But you will hear it here and there (today), especially in the countryside. People who use it in their speech are not writing literature, poetry, songs, newspapers, or academic articles. The fact that it might sound unusual to many people does not make it any more formal or literary than "aw shucks." – Drew Feb 27 '16 at 22:54
2

Merriam-Webster's analysis is lacking one very important aspect of this use, in that "many a man" is just a tried and true method (or literary device) employed to add emphasis. The disagreement between the plural "many" and the singular "man" serve to grab the reader or listener's attention, and in this particular example, to individualize what is a collective tragedy. The horror of watching man after man (many a man) die in battle.

IMO Merriam-Webster could do more to explain why such phrasing is used by writers and journalist.

Egox
  • 911
  • This is not an intrinsic feature of this usage. If it was used in an informal context, then we could consider your theory as a possibility. – Færd Feb 27 '16 at 05:33
  • @Fard: I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by intrinsic feature, but I was taught this usage (for emphasis) in grade school. In general, don't you find that any less than common choice of words draws attention? – Egox Feb 27 '16 at 11:31
  • I meant it's not emphatic by itself. If I was telling a war story at some bar and I said "Many a man died in that battle", it'd be in order to draw more attention, but if I was writing a formal history paper, then probably it'd be equivalent to many men. The context decides it, and no context is presented here. – Færd Feb 27 '16 at 14:32